The Re-Formers of Islam
The Mas'ud Questions

Are
the Hanbali Mujtahid Imams Dhahiri and Ibn Hazm considered Ahl al-Sunna?

Answer

Dawud ibn ‘Ali ibn Khalaf Dhahiri of Isfahan (d. 270/883) and ‘Ali
ibn Ahmad Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064) were not Hanbalis but Dhahiris.
Whether they were mujtahids (qualified to issue expert Islamic
legal opinion) is debatable, not only for reasons I will discuss, but
also because little that was written by Dawud al-Dhahiri has come down
to us, and as for Ibn Hazm, if someone doesn’t even know about the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892) as it is well established that Ibn Hazm did
not, I’m not sure that he can be considered a mujtahid.

What the
Dhahiris are most famous for is their denial of all qiyas or analogy.
It is recorded, for example, that Dawud held that the prohibition in hadith
of urinating into a pool of water does not show that there is anything
wrong with defecating in it; and it is also related that he believed
the Qur’anic prohibition of saying "Uff" (in disgust) to one’s parents
did not prove that it was wrong to beat them. These are two examples of
denials of what is called an a fortiori analogy, or qiyas jaliyy.
Denying the validity of a fortiori analogy is so obviously wrong,
that Imam al-Juwayni (d. 478/1085) has said:

The position
adopted by the most exacting of scholars is that those who deny analogy
are not considered scholars of the Umma or conveyers of the Shari‘a, because
they oppose out of mere obstinacy and exchange calumnies about things
established by an overwhelming preponderence of the evidence, conveyed
by whole groups from whole groups back to their prophetic origin (tawatur). For most
of the Shari‘a proceeds from ijtihad, and the uniquivocal statements
from the Qur’an and hadith do not deal [n: in specific particulars by
name] with even a tenth of the Shari‘a [n: as most of Islamic life is
covered by general principles given by Allah to guide Muslims
in every culture and time, and by analogy (qiyas) from established
rulings], so these [Dhahiris] are considered like unlearned, common
people" (Dhahabi, Siyar a‘lam al-nubala’ [Beirut: Mu’assasa al-Risala,
1401/1984], 13.105).

From the latter
paragraph, we can understand a main difference of Dhahiri thought from the
four schools of Sunni Islam; namely, that it radically truncated the range
and relevance of the Shari‘a to nothing more than those rulings established
by the literal wording (dhahir) of hadiths or verses. And this is perhaps
one reason today for renewed interest in the long-dead school, namely, that
it frees people from having to learn and follow a large part of the Shari‘a,
which is deduced from the general and comprehensive ethos
revealed in the Qur’an and sunna.

After reflecting
for a moment, you may have guessed what name Dhahiri literalism goes under
today—though nothing justifies identifying the Islam of the salaf or ‘early Muslims’ with this sterile school of thought. Indeed, in classical
scholarship, which was more precise, the term salafi meant a Muslim
who died within four hundred years of the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace).

To put it
more briefly, a great many of the "Salafi ijtihads" that we see
today are not salafi (early Muslim) at all, but mere Dhahiri interpretations of hadiths. For example, a bearded-engineer type, after
leading us at salat al-fajr prayer in Chicago a few months ago,
told a latecomer to the first rak‘a (who had been finishing his sunna
prayer when the iqama (call to commence) was made): "If the prescribed
prayer begins, you don’t finish the sunna, but quit and join the group.
Don’t listen to Abu Hanifa, or Malik, or Shafi‘i; the hadith is clear:
‘There is no prayer after the iqama except the prescribed one.’"

Now, the dhahir or ‘literal meaning’ of the hadith was as he said, but the
Imams of Shari‘a have not understood it this way for the very good reason
that Allah says in the Qur’an , "And do not nullify your works" (Qur’an
47:33), and to simply quit an act of worship (e.g. the sunna rak‘as before
fajr) is precisely to nullify one of one’s works.

Scholars
rather understand the hadith to mean that one may not begin a sunna
(or other nafila) prayer after the call to commence (iqama) is given.
And this is very usual in human language: to use a general expression,
in this case "There is no prayer" to mean a specific part or aspect
of it; namely, "There is no initiating a prayer." Consider how
the Qur’an says, "Ask the village we were in, and the caravan that we
came with" (Qur’an 12:82), where the literal meaning (dhahir) of village and caravan; namely, the assemblage of stone huts and the string
of pack animals, are not things that can be asked—but rather a
specific aspect or part of them is intended; that is, the people of the village and the people of the caravan, or rather, just some
of them. There are many similar expressions in every language, "Put the
tea on the stove," for example, not meaning to heap the dried leaves on
the stove, but rather to put them in a pot, add water, and light the stove,
and so on. It is all the more surprising that anyone, Dhahiri or otherwise,
could have ever imagined that Arabic, with its incomparable richness in
figures of speech, could be so impoverished as to lack this basic expressive
faculty.

When we consider
the important scholars of the early period of the Companions (Sahaba)
and those after them, we simply do not find this Dhahiri methodology had
any currency among them. It is hence difficult to see why we should accept
it as "a return to the way of the early Muslims (Salaf)," much less to
"the Qur’an and sunna." Especially when we consider that the earliest
generations after the Companions (Sahaba) did not leave the task of issuing fatwa to the commonality of Muslims (saying, "the hadith is clear,
and it says . . ."), but rather tended to choose one scholar in
each main city to decide legal questions, in deference to the Qur’anic
imperative,

"Had they
referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, those
of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter" (Qur’an
4:83),

where "those
of them whose task it is to find it out (yastanbitunahu)," as I will discuss
below, refers to those possessing the capacity to draw inferences by
ijtihad from the texts of the Qur’an and sunna, which is called in Arabic istinbat. This is how the Companions (Sahaba) understood the verse,
for Usama ibn Zayd [al-Laythi] (d. 153/770) relates from Safwan ibn Sulayyim
(d. 132/750) that "no one [of the Companions] gave legal opinion (fatwa)
in the mosque at the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
other than these: ‘Umar [ibn al-Khattab], ‘Ali [ibn Abi Talib], Mu‘adh [ibn
Jabal], and Abu Musa [al-Ash‘ari]" (Dhahabi, Siyar a‘lam al-nubala’ [Beirut: Mu’assasa al-Risala, 1401/1984], 2.389).

Finally,
if the poverty of Dhahiri interpretation is plain enough in fiqh, in ‘aqida,
is can amount to outright kufr, as when someone reads the Qur’anic
verse,

"Today We
forget you as you have forgotten this day of yours" (Qur’an 45:34),

and affirms
that Allah forgets, which is an imperfection, and not permissible
to affirm of Allah. Of this sort of literalism, Dawud al-Dhahiri
and Ibn Hazm were innocent. ("Forgetting" in this verse rather means to
abandon the unbelievers to their chastisement, as we shall see below.)

Ibn Hazm
criticized Ash‘arism on the basis of what had reached him about it, though
to read his main work on tenets of faith, the five-volume al-Fisal
bayn al-milal wa nihal [Distinction between religions and sects] (Beirut:
Dar al-Jil, n.d.) one finds that he was an Ash‘ari on tenets of faith
(‘aqida) in everything but name, with the exception of one question, which
was that he believed that Allah’s omnipotence related not only to creating
the possible (al-mumkin) but to the impossible as well. He is reported
to have said, "If Allah had wanted, He could have begotten a son," which
conflicts with the Ash‘ari position that the inherently impossible, such
as this, or such as "creating a square circle" are mere verbal absurdities,
and not relevant to the divine attribute of omnipotence, such that it
could be asked whether or not Allah could create them.

As for Dawud
al-Dhahiri, little in his biographical literature indicates deviant positions
on tenets of faith (‘aqida). Although he was accused of believing in the
createdness of the Qur’an , it turns out to have been the same as the
position of Bukhari and others: that our writing and voicing of the Qur’an
are created, and that Allah’s attribute speech is beginninglessly eternal.